Handgun Registration

[SPOOFE]

RE: The Car/Gun analogy.

First off, no analogy is perfect. I’ve noticed a tendency to “debunk” the car analogy by saying “Your analogy works THIS way, but it doesn’t work THAT way, so it doesn’t work.” While it may be true, it doesn’t mean that there are NO similarities between cars and guns.

Guns kill in the hands of irresponsible people. So do cars. Guns are powerful, dangerous tools. So are cars. Guns are widespread and relatively ingrained in the American culture. So are cars. I do not see how “Cars can provide transportation and guns can’t” nullifies the previously noted similiarities.
zwaldd…

i inferred it because he (and others at this point) implied it. why else would he have included it in this argument?

Are you denying that, in order to ban guns at some unknown point in the future, it would be necessary to have a knowledge of the location and status of the majority of guns?

What 'Beer, and many others, are saying is that a ban is not a given, but it’s a risk that is not balanced out by any significant benefit. “A few lives saved” is NOT a significant benefit when you’re dealing with numbers reaching into the thousands and millions. Statistically, it’s negligible, especially when considering that there is NO definitive proof that even “a few lives” WILL be saved through gun registration.

The point is, dear zwaldd, is that there are NO benefits to gun registration, therefore rendering ANY risk, even astronomically minute ones (not that I’m saying the risk of a ban is astronomically minute) a major reason for NOT instituting gun registration.

but nobody suggested it was. why confound the argument with straw men unless your whole position is, itself, straw?

You won’t get far with sound bites, my friend. It HAS been suggested. It was brought up as one of the counter-arguments towards gun registration. Perhaps you can address the points instead of just pretending they don’t exist?

[Gary_Kumquat]

Catbiker:

*Originally posted by CatBiker *
**I met a Canadian couple once and they said something I thought might now be relevant to this subject of the US of A vs England, Canada or Australia. " You Yanks had people before government, the people went out to the frontiers and the laws followed. We had government before we had the people on the frontier." I can see that this is to some extent true IMO. **

Of course, there was a government in Britain before any people turned up. Sigh. Bit of a silly statement really.

And then…

*Originally posted by CatBiker *
**Being an American I just have a hard time understanding the way people think that a person is not allowed to protect them selves. I guess rape, robbery, (robbery, you are present vs burglary, you are not present), murder do not happen in those countries. And if they do, it is just too bad that you are a victim. Can you kill a criminal in your home who has killed your child with an illegal gun by hitting him with a cricket bat? What happens to you if you kill him with an unregistered gun?
**

Please try not to be facetious. As I’m currently living in the UK let me advise you that yesy people can have guns (through a licensing process), yes people can defend themselves, and yes you can protect your family and property.

To be honest, whenever you make remarks this groundless all you do is undermine your own cause.

[Gary_Kumquat]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
**RE: The Car/Gun analogy.

First off, no analogy is perfect. I’ve noticed a tendency to “debunk” the car analogy by saying “Your analogy works THIS way, but it doesn’t work THAT way, so it doesn’t work.” While it may be true, it doesn’t mean that there are NO similarities between cars and guns.

Guns kill in the hands of irresponsible people. So do cars. Guns are powerful, dangerous tools. So are cars. Guns are widespread and relatively ingrained in the American culture. So are cars. I do not see how “Cars can provide transportation and guns can’t” nullifies the previously noted similiarities.**

Spoofe, I agree that there are a lot of similarities between cars and guns, mainly in terms of the respect that both should be handled with, and the responsibilities they bring with them.

So, do you object to having to get a driving license before driving a car? Do you think that perhaps a compulsory “gun handling test”, similar to a driving test, would be a good idea.

Hell, perhaps insurance would be a good idea too.

All of these are just ideas for discussion.

[UncleBeer]

Except for one failed attempt to prove that registration would indeed save lives, I see nothing here that leads me to believe any of the goals of good gun legislation would be promoted. Surely, if registration is a good idea, there must be some obvious and vast benefit to it. Why can no one delineate it here? We are talking about a huge, cumbersome, and gigantically expensive program here. There has to be some equally large benefit to make it worthwhile to undertake a handgun registration program.

Now to try to steer this topic back to my original intent, here, again, are what I believe the goals of good gun legislation should be:
[list=1]
[li]Prevent criminals from obtaining useable guns in the first place.[/li][li]Reduce the incidence of firearms used in crime.[/li][li]Aid the authorities in prosecution of criminals after a gun is used in the commission of a crime.[/li][li]Increase gun safety and reduce accidents of legitimate users.[/li][/list=1]
So, again I ask, show me how registration is of use in advancing any of those goals. This is what I wish to know. If you have other ideas of what good gun legislation should do, and if registration promotes those goals, let’s hear them. Gary Kumquat’s come closest on this front, suggesting that registration could provide data to prove that more handgun restrictions would be ineffective and therefore unnecessary.

I may later today start a thread to debate what the goals of good gun legislation should be; I’m sure there’s more than the few I’ve listed. Stay tuned …

[zwaldd]

spoofe

It HAS been suggested.

yeah, by the anti-registation side as a straw man because nobody on the pro-registration side in this thread is defending it.

Perhaps you can address the points instead of just pretending they don’t exist?

i already addressed the point. i said i’m not for a ban. i’m not ignoring the points, even the straw ones. you’re just ignoring my response.

[Gary_Kumquat]

UB, I’m still working on some possible benefits, but I wanted to just reduce one of the criticims you’ve levelled against it:

*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
We are talking about a huge, cumbersome, and gigantically expensive program here. There has to be some equally large benefit to make it worthwhile to undertake a handgun registration program.

I don’t see why it should be such an expensive system to set up. For example, let’s say you have a registration fee of, hell, $3. Not exactly a prohibitive amount, really.

Given your figure of 65,000,000 handguns, that would generate a revenue of $195 million dollars. That should cover the costs rather easily, I’d have thought. I mean, it’s not exactly going to be the most complex DB design, is it? Let’s say $30 mil should cover design, implementation and hardware. If you hire a staff of 100 to run it, at an average cost of say $50 k per year, you’ve got enough left over to run the scheme for 30 years if no-one ever registers another handgun.

As stated above, not a defence as such, more a damage limitation exercise. Linked benefit in the post…

[UncleBeer]

At this point, I want to make a clarification. Technically, automobile registration is done every year; it’s the renewal of your license plates. A better analogy, or parallel, for our purposes here, would be the automobile titling process. After all, were aren’t talking about getting a permit to use that handgun every year, we just want to know who owns it and who it’s being sold to.

I don’t know about your cost estimates, Gary. I suspect the annual costs are gonna be fairly steep, but I can’t put a number to them. I don’t really like using the automobile analogy, but there is a parallel, complete to transfer between private owners. Registering handguns is similar, only on a smaller scale and that may be outweighed by the criticality of the data. By that I mean, severe punishment to an individual may hang on the data recorded. If there are errors, in the records, prosecution of the wrong individual is a potential problem, and teh penalties for gun crimes are far more serious than penalties for, say, auto theft.

Reviewing Gary’s last post, I see I’ve given him, and maybe some others, a misconception. He’s said that cost of this program may not be too terribly expensive. That may be true, but I wasn’t speaking solely of the cost of adminstration of the program. There’s a whole range of costs to individual purchaser beyond the registration fee. I should have made that clear when I first offered it up. My apologies.

Here’s one example of the additional costs I’m speaking of. If we are indeed suggesting that handguns sold between private individuals must be registered, we’re going to need far more than 100 registrars. Hell, that’s only an average of two per state. If theparticipants in the sale have to present themselves to the registrar for identification purposes, and I don’t see how reliable registration can be done otherwise, many people are going have to travel hundreds of miles. Take Montana, or Texas, or even Alaska, as an example.

So, do you see, zwaldd, there’s a large range of issues to be covered before you dismiss the issue saying, “record firearm transactions in a computer database. what’s the problem?” You are wishing a solution into existence. It ain’t gonna happen. This is exactly why I asked in the OP that registration proponents expound on their system to record purchases. It’s an integral part of the debate.

[Edited by UncleBeer on 01-11-2001 at 11:51 AM]

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat *
A person who has a gun for criminal intent is very unlikely to register that gun, or at least less likely to register it than a normal gun user.

Want to see something funny?

Read the Supreme Court case Haynes v U.S.(1968). The court said…well, let them speak for themselves:

We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.

In other words, people who are legally disallowed from owning firearms are SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED FROM REGISTRATION LAWS! So by definition, ONLY law abiding citizens are required to register, thereby being penalized for obeying the law. That, I think, should be a sufficiently strong argument against registration.

Of course, That won’t be good enough for anyone who has total prohibition as a final goal…

[Danielinthewolvesden]

zwald- the Canadian recent regeistration attempt is becoming very cotly indeed, and has over-run early estimates. And that for a nation with a small % of our population, and even small % of our guns. I figure one of our Canadian posters will chime in with some exact figures. However- there is no reason to assume that the registration will be cheaper that the DMV- both in terms of staff & costs. Ie 100’s of millions of dollars and a staff of 10’s of thousands.

[zwaldd]

So, do you see, zwaldd, there’s a large range of issues to be covered before you dismiss the issue saying, “record firearm transactions in a computer database. what’s the problem?”

i’m neither dismissing the issue, nor denying that there are specifics that would need to be worked out to implement a nationwide database. nationwide databases are nothing new, the technology has existed for decades, and there are already experts in every aspect of db administration. i don’t see why you assume the db will require more than 100 registrars. all retail transactions can be electronically entered by the retailer. private sellers can file a form with an agency. do we even have the statistic on how many private gun sales there are per day? i couldn’t find one. as gary kumquat pointed out, registration could also be a step in the direction of more meaningful statistics. on a related note, is there any precedence at all in this country for registration of a product leading to a total ban? how about if we all assume, based on precedent and an absolute lack of evidence, that registration will not lead to a ban.

ok, now beer. your #1 point about good gun legislation is “Prevent criminals from obtaining useable guns in the first place.” not possible. no matter what legislation you enact in this country, criminals can get guns smuggled in from other countries. #2 reduce the incidents of firearms used in crimes. making it more difficult to get an untraceable gun in this country will reduce this. if registered owners are held liable for the misuse of their guns, they will be extra careful about how they store them, who they lend them to, or filing a new registration form when selling them. liability has to play a part in this. if an investigation shows that a gun was stolen and there’s no evidence that the owner was negligent in storing it or had a part in the crime, then he doesn’t get prosecuted. however if it can be proven in court that he kept his handgun on his coffee table and it somehow walked off and ended up being used in a crime, then he can be found criminally negligent and rightfully so, imo. #3 aid the authorities in prosecution of criminals after violent crime. i disagree that this has anything to do with gun legislation designed to prevent crime. after the crime is committed, authorities just need to prosecute for the crime. they can throw in a charge of posession of unregistered/stolen weapon just to add time on the sentence or something. #4 increase gun safety and reduce accidents. liability, liability, liability. don’t lend your gun to your kid without your supervision because you become responsible for who or what he shoots.

now you know how registration can be used to advance the goals of good legislation.

so what’s to prevent organized crime and corrupt foreign interests from stepping in and making sure the flow of illegal guns continues unabated? i don’t know. i’ll take it on as a project in my spare time.

danielinthewolvesde (you leave off my d, i leave off your n)

However- there is no reason to assume that the registration will be cheaper that the DMV

i agree. are you implying that i assumed that?

[BF]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zwaldd *
**

<<snipped>> if registered owners are held liable for the misuse of their guns, they will be extra careful about how they store them, who they lend them to, or filing a new registration form when selling them. liability has to play a part in this. if an investigation shows that a gun was stolen and there’s no evidence that the owner was negligent in storing it or had a part in the crime, then he doesn’t get prosecuted. however if it can be proven in court that he kept his handgun on his coffee table and it somehow walked off and ended up being used in a crime, then he can be found criminally negligent and rightfully so, imo. **

Zwaldd,
My problem with your position is the above. Rather than place responsibility for the crime on the perpetrator, now I share responsibility with the guy who broke into my house and stole my pistol from my closet. If I practice safe firearm’s handling practices, obey the law, but this unfortunate circumstance occurs, now I am responsible? To me, this scenario is completely unacceptable.

[justwannano]

I don’t visit the pit so I had no idea this was going on.

I was under the impression that We as American citizens had rights and unless the constitution revoked these rights,for whatever reason, it is our right to do or own anything we want.

[zwaldd]

bf

If I practice safe firearm’s handling practices, obey the law, but this unfortunate circumstance occurs, now I am responsible?

to allay your fears, read no further than the quote you posted: “if an investigation shows that a gun was stolen and there’s no evidence that the owner was negligent in storing it or had a part in the crime, then he doesn’t get prosecuted.” it would be up to the prosecutor to supply sufficient evidence to a judge that you were negligent to even be brought to trial. you’d have to be pretty negligent for that to happen.

justwannaknow

I was under the impression that We as American citizens had rights and unless the constitution revoked these rights,for whatever reason, it is our right to do or own anything we want

well it’s probably a good thing for all of us that this isn’t the case.

[justwannano]

Zwaldd said

…however if it can be proven in court that he kept his handgun on his coffee table and it somehow walked off and ended up being used in a crime, then he can be found criminally negligent and rightfully so, imo.

If you kept your wallet on the TV and the same Guy stole it would you be responsible if he used the money to buy drugs.

Damn. A thief is a thief.
A murderer is a murderer. An accident is an accident.

If you do not understand my first analogy let me put it another way. If the same guy stole your car out of your garage and killed someone with it would you be responsible?

[zwaldd]

If the same guy stole your car out of your garage and killed someone with it would you be responsible?

only if there was a law that says you would be. fortunately, no one in this thread has suggested that gun registration laws should apply to anything other than guns. do i need to explain the difference between guns and cars or do you think you can research that on your own?

[justwannano]

Zwaldd
Sure I know the difference between a car and a gun.
It is not me that does not understand.
I was asking you to see the paralled thinking but I guess I was asking too much.

[GusNSpot]

Guess what ! The person around here that gives the classes for Concealed Carry is the ** Chief of Police.**

The gun that you bring to the class to use is ** not ** written down, nor checked to see if it is registered. Just must be a pistol, i.e., under 16 inches and not be a smooth bore.

I guess the local police are not too worried that the noncriminal element around here are going to flip out and start shooting.

[UncleBeer]

Zwaldd -

private sellers can file a form with an agency

Where do they get the form? How do you verify that the people submitting it are the people named on the form? You have to have a positive identification. This is why when registering a car, you have to actually show up in person, with picture ID. Do I have to drag the details of your registration system out of you one at a time? Or, and this is probably the true situation, have you never actually thought about how to implement a system such as this? Again, I believe you assumed that this could be made to magically happen just be declaring it so.

Your response to my point number two included this remark:

if an investigation shows that a gun was stolen and there’s no evidence that the owner was negligent in storing it or had a part in the crime, then he doesn’t get prosecuted. however if it can be proven in court that he kept his handgun on his coffee table and it somehow walked off and ended up being used in a crime, then he can be found criminally negligent and rightfully so, imo

For your information, prosecution under these circumstances already takes place. There’s no need to impose registration to allow prosecution of negligent gun owners.

You then claim my point three has nothing to do with the prevention of crime. Well, I never said it did. All I said was that a good law should help the authorities prosecute a crime. Isn’t this just the case you are arguing in support of registration? Isn’t registration designed to help the authorities trace a gun used in a crime? I don’t believe it’ll work, but just the same. You are arguing against your own position, it seems to me. And then you add, “they can throw in a charge of posession of unregistered/stolen weapon just to add time on the sentence or something.” That’s great. I love it. You want to impose the law and then after the fact, determine what use we can make of it. That’s absurd and a certain way to create bad legislation.

Finally, we come to point four. Your comment about liability seems to run in hand with your comment on point two. You remember, where you advocate prosecution of negligent gun owners? Again, registration is totally unnecessary for this purpose. Prosecution of negligent gun owners is already taking place.

Nothing yet. Keep trying.

[zwaldd]

Nothing yet.

well i wouldn’t say nothing. i’d say plenty. do i really have to keep trying? just re-read what i’ve already written.

[another_diversion]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**Zwaldd -

private sellers can file a form with an agency

**Unclebeer -

Where do they get the form? How do you verify that the people submitting it are the people named on the form? You have to have a positive identification. This is why when registering a car, you have to actually show up in person, with picture ID. Do I have to drag the details of your registration system out of you one at a time?

I don’t beleive this is a discussion of detailed implementation. I am quite sure the details you request could be sorted out and resolved - not the issue. As for your other remarks, gun registration wouldn’t neglect nor hamper issues #2 and #3, they would only fortify their current weaknesses - again legal details to be sorted out elsewhere - also some of these details are items handled individually by each state.
as for:

“And then you add, “they can throw in a charge of posession of unregistered/stolen weapon just to add time on the sentence or something.” That’s great. I love it. You want to impose the law and then after the fact, determine what use we can make of it.”

The seatbelt laws are quite similar (since everyone seems to want to use car analogies) - the police aren’t necessarily looking for people not wearing their seatbelt, but should they stop you they have the option of fining you for this infraction.